[quote="gilliam, post:1, topic:205321"]
Tariq Aziz, formerly Saddam Hussein's top diplomat, who has been in US custody in Iraq, has been transferred to the custody of the Iraqi government, an Iraqi official said Wednesday.

Who is accusing him? The ones responsible for the deposit of depleted uranium? Who is casting the stones?

I thought the Bush Administration was going to serve his head to us on a platter for Christmas before they left office. I'm glad they did not. Now, Obama is just playing a puppet. I'm glad I did not vote for him. He did not keep his word for peace. That was the only reason I was going to vote for Obama. I'm glad I didn't. No, he does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize - bah! that's so political. That was in response to a comment made by Bin Laden a month earlier.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:2, topic:205321"]
It's interesting that he is a Chaldean Catholic. I wonder if a Christian could have risen to as high a position in any other Moslem majority country.

[/quote]

Iraq under Saddam was Socialist Baathist, as is Syria.
The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (also spelled Ba'th or Baath which means "resurrection or renaissance"; Arabic: حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي‎) is a secularist Arab nationalism/Pan-Arabism political party opposed to Western imperialism and calling for the "renaissance" or "resurrection" of the Arab World and its unity in one united state. Its motto — "Unity, Liberty, Socialism" (wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya) — refers to Arab unity, freedom from non-Arab control and interference, and Arab socialism rather than to European socialism, or communism.

The party was founded in Damascus, Syria in 1940 by the Syrian intellectuals Michel Aflaq, and Salah al-Bitar, and since its inception has established branches in different Arab countries, although the only countries it has ever held power in are Syria and Iraq. In Syria it has had a monopoly on political power since the party's 1963 coup. Ba'athists also seized power in Iraq in 1963, but were deposed some months later. They returned to power in a 1968 coup and remained the sole party of government until the 2003 Iraq invasion. Since then they have been banned in Iraq.

Ba'ath party also had a significant number of Christian Arabs among its founding members. For them, most prominently Michel Aflaq, a resolutely nationalist and secular political framework was a suitable way to evade faith-based Islamic orientation and the minority status it would give non-Muslims and to get full acknowledgment as citizens. Also, during General Rashid Ali al-Gaylani's short-lived anti-British military coup in 1941, Iraq-based Arab nationalists (Sunni Muslims as well as Chaldean Christians) asked the Germany government to support them against British colonial rule.

After 1948, the traditional Arab Muslim elite failed to prevent the founding of Israel and was not able to provide welfare and administrative standards comparable to the western world. The secular and highly disciplined Ba'ath movement was seen as less corrupt and better organized. In multi-ethnic, multi-faith and highly divergent countries like Iraq and Syria, the Ba'ath concept allowed non-Muslims, as well as secular-minded Sunni and Shia Muslims to work under one common roof. The socialist stance allowed as well for closer cooperation with the Soviet Union after 1945. Starting with the 1960s, the GDA had a stronger military involvement in Syria as well.
...
The party works amongst the Palestinians directly through the Arab Liberation Front (known as ALF or Jabhat al-Tahrir al-'Arabiyah) founded by Zeid Heidar, and indirectly through the relatively small pro-Iraqi wing of Fatah formerly led by Khaled Yashruti. ALF formed the major Palestinian political faction in Iraq during the Saddam years. It is numerically small, but gained some prominence due to the support given to it by the Iraqi government. It is a member organization of PLO. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party

Who is accusing him? The ones responsible for the deposit of depleted uranium? Who is casting the stones?

I thought the Bush Administration was going to serve his head to us on a platter for Christmas before they left office. I’m glad they did not. Now, Obama is just playing a puppet. I’m glad I did not vote for him. He did not keep his word for peace. That was the only reason I was going to vote for Obama. I’m glad I didn’t. No, he does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize - bah! that’s so political. That was in response to a comment made by Bin Laden a month earlier.

Aziz was acquitted in one trial but was sentenced to 15 years in prison last year for his role in the execution of 42 merchants in 1992. The merchants were executed after being found guilty of profiteering.

It is interesting to note that Aziz was the only Christian in Saddam’s mainly Sunni regime. He gained international recognition as a strong critic of the US. Meanwhile, Aziz’s defense attorney Badee Izzat Aref, who is based in neighboring Jordan, said that his client feared the transfer was a death sentence. “Mr. Aziz told me the following: ‘The Iraqi government will certainly kill me. I fear for my life. I expect I won’t live except for days. I’m afraid they’ll poison my food or won’t give me my medicine to silence me. President Obama is no different from Bush, who has Iraqi blood on his hands’,” Aref said.

I think I understand that it is not Saddam Hussein's 'trial' that we are talking about. I know it is Mr. Tarik Aziz's 'trial' we are discussing. I thought by some of the links on a google search that I provided you could take it from there and do your own search to determine the validity of the 'trials' and 'courts'.

The people that wanted to gain control of Iraq falsely accused him and found him guilty. Period. Is this justice? Not in my book.

If you do not understand what I am trying to say, don't concern yourself. You are in good company.

I think he was the only Christian anywhere near the top of Saddam’s government. From what I recall, he was there because he was a friend of Saddams, and a pretty secular Christian.

Not doubting any of your assertions, but I might add the following as a supplement.

Before the latest versions of radical Islam, Christians have always held an interesting position in some Muslim nations. (Sometimes Jews have as well, but that’s another story.)
Christians in Iraq (and in Syria, I’m told) have long been a resource for the rulers precisely because they have no 'backing" among the major tribes and aren’t sufficiently numerous to be a major tribe themselves. Everything in the Middle East is tribal, and power is always the privilege of the “strongest tribe” or combination of tribes. Alliances among tribes shift all the time, so nobody can be trusted.

Anyway, since Christians have no power at all, and no possibility of allying themselves with any tribe or combination of tribes, they are “trusted” by whoever is in power. Christians in Iraq have traditionally served whoever was in power, and very frequently in high offices. Part of the price they pay is by being true to their patronage, because power might shift, and they would need to be just as faithful to the ruler who took over. It’s a precarious life for them, and has been for centuries.

Arab tribes have something of a “caste” aspect to them as well, though not as strong as Indian castes do or did. Some tribes tend to be military types. Some tend to be tradesmen. Some tend to be entrepreneurs. And so on. Christians in Iraq are not a “tribe” in the same sort of way the Muslim tribes are tribes (though they are “tribal” as among themselves) because influence and power are accessible to Muslim tribes. But as a “caste”, loosely speaking, Christians have always been heavily drawn upon for civil service.

I have had occasion to personally know a cousin of Tariq Aziz. She is an Iraqi Chaldean Christian too. According to her, yes, he is a participant in the Saddam regime and no doubt sold something of his soul to serve Saddam. But on the other hand, he’s a victim too, because under Saddam no Christian could turn down Saddam’s advancement or favor. It was unthinkable because one’s whole family could be tortured and killed if one did. Nor could he turn down Saddam’s bidding. He was, she told me, afraid for his life and that of his family, every single day.

So, while I am sure he did things we would not think of doing, and while I might be too easily persuaded of things, I have always had a certain degree of pity for Tariq Aziz ever since his cousin told me what she did. I would give anything to know what his conversation with Pope John Paul II was like. The Pope would have known all of the above. I wish I could know what all they talked about.
I’ll bet it would surprise.

Ziad Aziz said in an interview that his father did not regret his work for Saddam, and still regarded the former dictator as a great man. “He worked with Saddam more than 35 years. He said ‘He's my friend. He's my leader. He's my president'. . . When they killed Saddam he cried,” he recalled.

After the execution of Saddam in 2007, he told Britain's Sunday Telegraph: 'He was a friend, a colleague a boss and I loved him as a person. It was not just a job for me. I loved Saddam and his imagination and view of Iraq. The day he was killed, Iraq died with him.'

I would give anything to know what his conversation with Pope John Paul II was like. The Pope would have known all of the above. I wish I could know what all they talked about.
I’ll bet it would surprise.

I think that Aziz was trying to get the Pope to repeat what he was saying, that an attack on Iraq would be like another Christian Crusade. The Pope didn’ take the bait.

[quote="gilliam, post:17, topic:205321"]
Ziad Aziz said in an interview that his father did not regret his work for Saddam, and still regarded the former dictator as a great man. “He worked with Saddam more than 35 years. He said ‘He's my friend. He's my leader. He's my president'. . . When they killed Saddam he cried,” he recalled.

After the execution of Saddam in 2007, he told Britain's Sunday Telegraph: 'He was a friend, a colleague a boss and I loved him as a person. It was not just a job for me. I loved Saddam and his imagination and view of Iraq. The day he was killed, Iraq died with him.'

Maybe his cousin was too sympathetic. But just possibly there is a bit of Stockholm Syndrome to your quoted statements. Many,perhaps millions, were the Russians who cried when Stalin died, notwithstanding that they knew what he had done.